Yeah, but that can’t possibly be true - which we ofc all know it can’t be, yet what you said is a very standard thing to say.
(Even “killing Hitler” was at that point of no good consequence - but “he” (?) would have been a hero if he killed Hitler at least one year sooner … but also max about 22 years earlier … so he completely missed the window on that “one redeeming quality” as well … so that whole thing is just a nonsense saying.)
There is literally nothing I can think of that would make him good in any isolated field. For a long time people held the believe that he was pro environment and animal rights. But he also killed his own dog. People also say that he had a special aura around him. That he was very charming. But those people were likely like trump supporters today. My great grandmother actually got to see him before she fled Germany. She said that there was nothing particularly interesting about him except for the way he speaks maybe.
The question is still to vague. Obviously all of his politics were the worst. But the way it’s phrased, you’d kinda have to agree he wasn’t ALL bad if, for example, he made a pretty tasty pasta sauce. Like. Not that it’d be relevant. It’s the vagueness of the question that I’m critiquing. Maybe I’m just having an autism moment.
I was hoping that the ‘not all bad’ would be almost all of it. Unfortunately while it was half of it, a full half said Hitler was as good a guy as he was a bad guy, with an equal number responding unsure, which is likely leaning toward I don’t want to give a socially unacceptable answer.
Even without or beyond judging the person, it’s the actions, results, and consequences of those actions too.
Which is even more complex, but important for understanding the context.
But it’s def really important to avoid black & white (wrongful) memefication, bcs suddenly the memetic value (the “idea” that the image of Hitler represents to masses on average) is vastly corrupted & serves other purposes.
Oh yeah? Care to share some links for that claim? Since Wikipedia has a whole article about Hitler being vegetarian. Apparently, he wasn’t super strict about it but he identified as one and the article also quotes newspaper articles of the time. I’d assume “anti-vegetarian propaganda” is a more modern thing.
What a terrible question. He was an awful person but obviously nobody is all bad.
He only has one redeeming quality: killing Hitler.
but also he killed the guy who killed hitler
Yeah, but that can’t possibly be true - which we ofc all know it can’t be, yet what you said is a very standard thing to say.
(Even “killing Hitler” was at that point of no good consequence - but “he” (?) would have been a hero if he killed Hitler at least one year sooner … but also max about 22 years earlier … so he completely missed the window on that “one redeeming quality” as well … so that whole thing is just a nonsense saying.)
He also prevented his capture and his prosecuting.
“Saved him from prosecution.”
(Or a lifetime of cozy government admin job in USA somewhere :D.)
/j
That’s for genocidial scientists though!
You are right.
What about for an artists named Aden Missler, has any gov agency have a place for him?
There is literally nothing I can think of that would make him good in any isolated field. For a long time people held the believe that he was pro environment and animal rights. But he also killed his own dog. People also say that he had a special aura around him. That he was very charming. But those people were likely like trump supporters today. My great grandmother actually got to see him before she fled Germany. She said that there was nothing particularly interesting about him except for the way he speaks maybe.
The question is still to vague. Obviously all of his politics were the worst. But the way it’s phrased, you’d kinda have to agree he wasn’t ALL bad if, for example, he made a pretty tasty pasta sauce. Like. Not that it’d be relevant. It’s the vagueness of the question that I’m critiquing. Maybe I’m just having an autism moment.
Nah, it’s deliberately formulated so it can be pulled out of context, misrepresented and cause outrage. And it works.
Depends on how pedantic one wants to be.
No it doesn’t.
Well I can’t think of any good qualities that actually mattered.
That’s the point. He was objectively all bad.
The more nuanced data: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Views_on_Hitler_poll_results.pdf
I was hoping that the ‘not all bad’ would be almost all of it. Unfortunately while it was half of it, a full half said Hitler was as good a guy as he was a bad guy, with an equal number responding unsure, which is likely leaning toward I don’t want to give a socially unacceptable answer.
Even without or beyond judging the person, it’s the actions, results, and consequences of those actions too.
Which is even more complex, but important for understanding the context.
But it’s def really important to avoid black & white (wrongful) memefication, bcs suddenly the memetic value (the “idea” that the image of Hitler represents to masses on average) is vastly corrupted & serves other purposes.
He was vegetarian (loaded topic, I know but probably gets more support than 20%) and loved dogs, for example.
He wasn’t, it’s well documented he wasn’t vegetarian this was spread as anti vegetarian propegand.
Oh yeah? Care to share some links for that claim? Since Wikipedia has a whole article about Hitler being vegetarian. Apparently, he wasn’t super strict about it but he identified as one and the article also quotes newspaper articles of the time. I’d assume “anti-vegetarian propaganda” is a more modern thing.
https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/myth-check-was-hitler-a-vegetarian/ Yeah you’re right later in life he identifies as one however still ate meat his chef fed him so the claim is dubious at best and may have been propergander for the war effort.
He did eat less meat because the doctor told him to. For his health.